data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
![]() |
Rhythm in JC, literal reading |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
In the main text we give the evident, faultlessly written rhythm of PE (together with the slur combining the final F with the chord in the next bar). The version of JC includes an error (7 quavers in a bar), however, it is not said that it must have been in [AI]. If this was the case, it has to be the rhythm of EF that would correspond to Chopin's intentions. However, if the rhythmic error had already been in [AI], the version of EF would have been only one of the attempts to guess Chopin's intentions. Therefore, the intended version of [AI] could be generally compatible with the text of PE – one should only correct the erroneous notation by adding a quaver flag to the last F (by the way, it would correspond to subscribing the note under the part of the R.H. in JC).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Errors of JC
notation: Rhythm